Philippine
TOumJJl
of
hychology
1979, Volume 12,
No.2,
pp. 10-16
HELPING
A
LOST
PASSENGER:
AN
ANALYSIS
OF
THE
NUMBER
OF
BYSTANDERS
AND
DEPENDENCY
OF
THE
VICTIM
IN
AN
URBAN
AND
A
RURAL
COMMUNITY
JOSE DE
GUZMAN
Department
of
Psychology
Ateneo de
Manila
University
One hundred twenty adult male and female commuters
participated unknowingly in an experiment conducted inside a
regular passenger
jeepney, The variables of number of bystanders,
dependency of the victim and type of community were arranged
in a 2x2x2 factorial design. Altruism, the dependent
variable, was
measured by the frequency, level and latency of bystander
intervention for a lost passenger. Resultsshow that subjects
high in
dependency status succeeded in elicitinggreater intervention. Urban
bystanders, "except when alone and when dealing with low
dependent strangers helped as often as their
rural counterparts.
Contrary
to expectations, the quality of intervention was found
to be better when a pair
of
bystanders rather than a lone by-
stander were involved.
•
I
•
The sight
of
a man helping another in need
evokes the ascription of an altruistic trait to
the benefactor. Altruism as a hypothetical
construct reflecting the intrinsic concern of
man for the good of others is the most
convenient mode of explaining helping
behavior. It is assumed to be the underlying
force for such acts in which individuals share
or sacrifice a valued commodity for no
apparent social or material reward.
The same pattern of reasoning in explaining
non-helping behavior is misleading and
insufficient.
The ascription
of
a negative trait
correspondent
to nonhelping behavior
disregards the fact that environmental factors
also exert facilitating and inhibiting forces on
helping behavior.
This
study attempts to demonstrate the
relationship between helping behavior in a
low-risk, low-cost demand situation and the
following factors: the number of bystanders
witnessing the event, the dependency level
of
the victim and the type
of
community to
which
the potential benefactor belongs. The
10
choice
of
the case
of
a lost jeepney passenger
instead
of
a high-risk emergency situation
provides for a potentially wider application
of
the findings since low-risk demand situations
occur more commonly in life.
Number
of
Bystanders
According to Darley and Latanc (1968) the
presence
of
other bystanders has an inhibiting
effect on a particular bystander's response to
an event: as the number of bystanders
increases, the frequency of intervention
decreases.
This occurs due to a process
referred to as the diffusion
of
responsibility.
A bystander who is a lone
witness
to an
event
is more likely to intervene than one
who is in the company
of
other bystanders.
This is so because the lone bystander carries
the
full responsibility for dealing with the
victim. He will also feel
all the guilt for
not
acting and will bear the full blame that others
may level for nonintervention.
The presence
of
other bystanders alters the
laws
of
responsibility and blame. The burden
•
•
HELPING A LOST PASSENGER
11
'.
•
•
of helping no longer falls squarely on the
shoulders
of
a particular bystander. likewise,
the ensuing blame or social sanction for
nonintervention is partitioned among the
bystanders.
In short, the presence
of
other
bystanders
leads to a diffusion
of
responsibility. The process makes it more
convenient for the bystander to resort to
nonintervention.
The studies of Latane and Rodin (1969),
Schwartz and Clauser (1970), Harris and
Robinson (1973), Campbell (1974),
Edwards
(1975), Gaertner (1975), and Latane and
Dabbs (1975) support the conclusion that the
presence of other bystanders leads to a
diffusion
of
responsibility which in turn
increases the likelihood of nonintervention.
Levy
et
aL
(1972) indicates the pervasiveness
of
the process. Diffusion
of
responsibility can
occur even in such a low-risk low-cost demand
situation as answering a door knock.
Dependency
of
the
Victim
The potential benefactor not only reacts to
other bystanders. His perception
of
the victim
can influence
his decision to help or
not
to
help.
Berkowitz and Daniels (1963) postulate
that
the
perceived dependency
of
a victim
activates a social responsibility norm. This
norm specifies
that
each individual in society
is expected to help another who is dependent
on him. He must do so even though there
seems to
be no promise
of
any material
reward.
Thus a victim who is perceived with a
high-
dependency status is more likely to get help
than one with a low dependency status. For
instance, Schaps (1972) reports that salesladies
responded more frequently to a customer who
carne in limping with a broken shoe than to
one who came
in casually looking for a pair
of
shoes. Gruder and Cook (1972) observe
that subjects stapled more questionnaires for
an experimenter who claimed he was in a bind
arid needed the subjects'
output
within two
hours than for an experimenter who claimed
he needed the
output
one week later.
Berkowitz and Connor (1966) caution
that
the social responsibility norm
;is
weak and
must
be directly activated in experimental
conditions to observe its effects. They stated
that the individual
will adhere to the norm to
the extent that
"he
is aware
of
this behavior
standard at the time, and motivated to act in
accord with it."
Following the suggestion
of
Berkowitz and
Connor, Schneider (1973) used a physical
disability cue to arouse dependency. He
compared helping a male confederate
in a
pair of crutches and another who was
not
physically handicapped. Schneider observed
that under the condition of high dependency
and low cost
of
helping, r.nsolicited
intervention for a stranger is virtually assured.
The studies
of
Pomazal and Clore (1973) and
Samerotte and
Harris
(1975) further
confirmed
that
victims who arc perceived to
be in greater need
of
help are mow likely to
get help because their situation arouses the
social responsibility
of
the would-be
benefactor.
Type
of
Community
In 1969, Latane and Rodin proposed
that
failure to intervene in emergencies seems to be
more characteristic
of
large cities than rural
areas. They deduced
this from their finding
that a
pair of subjects who were friends
more frequently helped a lady
in distress
than
a pair of strangers. Since bystanders to urban
emergencies are more likely to fmd themselves
in the presence of other bystanders whom
they do
not
know, they are Iess likely to
intervene.
Milgram (1970), however, posits an
alternative explanation for the seeming
resistance of urban people to intervene or
12
JOSE DE GUZMAN
. . - .
offer help to a stranger in need. Accordingly,
urban dwellers, .experience stimulus overload
due to the large number
of
people in cities,
the high population density and .vthe
heterogeneity
of
the population. Overload
occurs when there are just too many inputs to
cope with because. successive inputs, come so
fast
that,'
as an initial input is, just being
processed,: another is already confronting the
individual .for immediate processing
,The
influx
of,
information
into,
the
individual's system can be
reduced.
to
manageable levels by developing adaptive
mechanisms. 'The filtration
of
inputs to
process
is one form
of
adaptation. With this
particular mechanism, the individual chooses
those transactions which he considers worth
spending time on.·
Shenod and Downs (1974), Mathews
and Canon (1975) and Korte, Upman and
Toppen (1975)' provide results supporting the
notion .
that
the presence
of
a high stimulus
load can be so distracting to the individual
that he becomes less attentive to unfamiliar
others who may be in need of help.
Milgram proposes that the ultimate
adaptation to stimulus overload in the city is
to totally disregard the needs, interests and
demands
of
those whom
one'
does
not
define
as relevant to the satisfaction
of
personal
needs and to develop highly 'efficient
perceptual means'
of
determining whether an
individual falls into the category
of
friend .or
stranger. Thus he concludes
that
the disparity
in the treatment of friends and strangers
ought to be greater in cities than in towns;
the allotment
of
time and the willingness to
become involved with' those who have no
personal claim on one's time are less likely in
cities
than'
in towns.
Conceptual
Framework
Helping or nonhelping behavior is an active
response to .a demand situation;The individual
engages in a rapid processing Of the elements
of
his environment. Some inputs may lead to
inhibition of Intervention. while others may
facilitative.
.. '
The sources
of
such inputs are varied. One
such source is presence
of
the potential
benefactors themselves. The presence
of
other
bystanders may lead one to pass
off
the
responsibility of helping to
other
witnesses.
The victim himself is also a source
of
input.
If
he looks to be in real need
of
help, he is more
likely to get it. A less evident
but
equally
potent input is the orientation to daily life
that
the would-be helper has become used to.
In communities where people are less
often
to
meet and relate With strangers, people in need
of.help may remain unattended. to.
In
the light of the literature reviewed, it 'is
hypothesized
that-a
single bystander, a high-
dependent victim, and a rural setting, each
taken
separately, will facilitate helping
behavior more than a paired-bystander, a
low-dependent victim, and an urban setting.
I,t is expected
that
the
said relationships
will be reflected in the. following conditions:
1. a) The frequency and
b) the level
of
intervention ,will be
.higher .
c) .the latency
of
intervention will .be
shorter in a lone-bystander
than
in a
paired-bystanders condition.
2) a) The frequency and
b) the level
of
intervention will be
higher
c) the latency
of
intervention will be
shorter with
ahigh-dependent
than
. with a low-dependent victim.
3)
ajThe
frequency and
..
,
b) the level
of
intervention
Will
be higher
c).
the
latency .of dntervention will be
shorter in a rural
than
in an urban
setting
•.
•
•
•
•
HELPING
A
LOST
PASSENGER
13
•
METHOD
Subjects.« A total
of
120 adult male and
female commuters participated unknowingly
in the study.
Forty
were randomly assigned to
the lone bystander condition while
the
remaining 80 were grouped into 40 pairs.
They were administered a post experimental
interview and were debriefed on their
participation right in
the
vehicle.
Materials.- An observation form was used to
record the data.
It
contained
the
following
information: experimental treatment used,
day, date, time and place
of
experiment,
seating position taken by participants, the
verbal
response
of
the
bystander,
post-experimental questions on
the
effectivity
of
the manipulations and
the
demographic
data consisting
of
sex, age, length
of
stay in
the
area and educational attainment.
A mini-easette recorder was used to
insure
that
the verbal response
of
the bystander was
correctly transcribed.
Design;«
The three main variables of the
study,
the number
of
bystanders, dependency
of
the victim and type
of
community were
studied using a 2 x 2 x 2 factorial
quasi-experimental design.
The number
of
bystanders had
two
levels:
lone and paired condition. A bystander refers
to a commuter who became a chance witness
to
a lost passenger riding in the same jeep-
ney,
The dependency
of
the
victim refers to the
extent
of
inconvenience he would experience
as a result
of
missing his destination. In the
high-dependency condition,
the
victim carried
either two traveling bags or a
milk carton
box. In the low-dependency condition, he
only
carried a clutch bag.
The type
of
community was differentiated
into urban and rural.
An urban area was
defined as any city or municipality in the
country with at least a population density
of
250 persons per square kilometer. Its two
major characteristics are:
1he bulk
of
economic activities occur in offices Of
factories and a considerable segment
of
the
population are migrants. Quezon City was
purposively selected to represent
the
urban
area.
A rural area refers to
an)' municipality with
a population density less than 250
persons per
square kilometer. Its two major characteristics
are:
the
main source
of
livelihood is
agriculture or fishing and the .arge majority
are indigenous residents
of
the
rrea,
Bystander intervention was measured in
three ways as follows:
1.
Frequency»- This refers to the
number
of
cases in which intervention occured, H was
determined by counting
how
many
subjects
engaged in some form
of
intervention,
2. Level
of
intervention.- This refers to
the quality
of
the subjects' response. This was
measured using a pretested rating scale
wit'i
the
corresponding score:
o= No intervention occured.
I
=The bystander makes a statement
of
fact.
a. He addresses the victim and tells
him
that
the vehicle is
proceeding away from his
destination.
b. He addresses the drivel'
that
a
passenger is asking for directions.
2
= The bystander makes a statement
of
fact and gives directions to
the
victim. .
3 = The bystander makes a statement
of
fact, gives directions to the victim
and makes a command for
a. the victim to alight already, or
b.
the
driver to stop the jcepney to
allow the passenger to
alight,
4 =The bystander makes
~
statement
of
14
.JOSE
DE'GUZMAN
•
•
tact; gives directions to the victim '
. and makes a command for: '
a: the victim to alight already; and
b. the driver to stop the jeepney
to
allow the victim to alight. .:
3.
Latency,:-: This refers to the reaction
time of the bystander to the victim's plight. It
was measured from 1 to 120 seconds. When
no intervention occured after two minutes',the
behavior was classified as nonintervention
and
the experiment was terminated.
Procedure>
There
werefhree
persons in the
experimental staff. The first member
was the
male confederate who acted as the lost
passenger. The second was the jeepney driver
who was hired and briefed for his role. The
third member was
the
observer who sat beside
the driver and observed through the rear view
mirror the reaction
of
the bystanders. He also
measured
the latency
of
intervention with a
hidden stopwatch.
The passengers were given IS seconds to
settle down before
the
rust phase started. The
victim then engaged in a IS-second
attention-getting act during which he appeared
o to be scanning the roadsides for landmarks.
To ,introduce his case, the victim leaned
forward slightly toward the, driver's position
but
his' gaze was directed far ahead on the
road. Without looking at anyone he asked:
"Will
this pass by -
T"
After this
question, the victim continued scanning the
roadside until intervention occured , He did
not repeat his destination unless the bystander
asked for clarification. He listened silently to
the instructions of
the bystanders and limited
his own reactions to looking towards the
direction the helping bystanders pointed to.
The, victim did not
ask nor did he volunteer,
any answer.
The victim did not make any effort to stop,
the jeepney even after he had received
directions from the bystanders. Thus the
bystanders had the option to command the
driver to stop theijeepney, The experiment
was terminated only when the alloted 120
seconds
waS
over 'or when the bystander told
the driver to stop the jeepney, '
•
t'
•
RESULTS
Post-test,« The post-experimental interview
indicated that the bystanders were
all 'in a
position to help since they claimed familiarity
with
the'
destination
.of
the victim. The
bystanders also easily Identified that the
victim was in some kind
of
trouble. Finally, aU
participants
'claimed they did' not know that
an
experiment was going on
a~d
their ensuing
behavior was a natural response to a contrived
situation.
Main
Findings;«
The
frequency'of
bystander
intervention did
.not vary significantly in each
of the three independent variables.
It
is worth
noting that the lost passenger received some
form of help in three
of
four cases.
. ' ,
"")
The
level
of
intervention varied
significantly
,only
for' "the number of,
bystanders (F=7.S7, 1 and 72 df,
p<.Ol).
However, the, results were contrary to
expectations. The quality
of
intervention was
better from a pair
of,
bystanders than from a
lone bystander.
The latency
of,
intervention differed
significantly .according to the
dependency
of
the victim
(p::4.5S',
1, and 53,df,
p<:'OS).
The
high-dependent victims were attended to
faster than the low-dependent victim.
The latency
of
intervention also, differed
significantly
-by
type
of
community
(F=5.2l,
I: and 53, df,
p<.OS~.Bystanders.in
the rural
area responded, faster than their urban
counterparts.to the, case
of
the lost passenger.
There was a significant interaction effect
of
dependency
of
victim and type
of
community
(F=5.l0, 1 and 53 df,
p<.OS).
The urban
bystander responded more slowly than
his
rural counterpart to a low dependent victim.
,
I
•
•
HELPING A WST PASSENGER
IS
•
•
•
However, he responded as fast as his rural
counterpart to a high-dependent victim.
Finally, there was a three factor interaction
effect (F=5.38, I and 53 df, p<.05). The
urban bystander responded more cautiously
than his rural counterpart to a low-dependent
victim, particularly if the urban bystander was
the lone witness.
Incidental
Findings
1. Paired bystanders are likely to in-
fluence each other's behavior. When one
member of a pair intervenes, the other is
likely to support.
If
one remains passive, the
other
is likely to be passive too.
2. Group status seems to operate among
acquainted pairs of bystanders. The lower
status member deferred intervention to the
higher status member.
3. Urban bystanders appear more conscious
of
the delineation
of
functions. Intervening
urban bystanders
claimed that the victim was
addressing the driver for directions as he
would be the most logical person to ask. On
the other hand, the
rural bystanders claimed
they were the ones being addressed by the
victim.
4. Rural bystanders are more willing to
interact longer with the victim as they spend
more time
pving directions.
DISCUSSION
The study failed to give support to the
concept
of
diffusion
of
responsibility resulting
from the presence
of
other bystanders. The
paired bystanders responded as frequently as
the lone bystander. It may be that the
Filipino's
high regard for social acceptance
influences
him to offer help as readily in the
presence of others as when he
is a line
witness to an event.
As for the finding that the paired
bystanders exhibited a higher level
of
intervention contrary to expectation, this is
regarded as a technical drawback of
measurement. Intervening pairs
of
bystanders
complemented each other's response therehy
resulting in a higher level of intervention.
The occurrence
of
intervention initially
appears unrelated to the dependency
of
the
victim. The high-dependent victim does
not
elicit significantly more frequent intervention
or a higher quality
of
intervention. What the
dependency factor provides is a cue for
decision-making on the part
of
the helper. A
clear indication
of
a need for help can spell
the difference.
If
the potential helper takes a
long time to decide that help
in.
needed, his
behavior may be interpreted by another
bystander as inaction and
the latter will be
guided accordingly in responding to the
victim.
Finally
~
this study gives a
slight
indication
that urban-rural differences in responding to
strangers in need is starting to develop. Urban
bystanders, especially when alone with no one
to validate their impressions, are less likely to
respond to a stranger who does not seem to
be in urgent need
of
help. On the other hand,
the rural bystander is still at ease in
relating
with strangers regardless of their state
of
dependency.
REFERENCES
BERKOWITZ, 1.. and DANIELS, L R. Responsibi-
lity and dependency. Joumal
of
Abnormal and
Social Psychology, 1963, 66, 429-436.
BERKOWITZ, L and CONNOR, W. II. Success,
failure and social responsibility. Journal
oj'
PersoruzUty
and Social Psychology, 1966, 4,
664-669.
CAMPBELL,
M.
D. A controlled :1nvestigation
of
altruistic
behavior: helping the hitch-hiker.
Psychology Abstracts, 1976,56, 1\'0. 2, 281.
DARLEY, J. M. and LATANE, ·D. )Bystandcr inter-
vention in emergencies: diffusion of responsihi-
Iity. Journal
of
Personality and Social Psycho..
logy, 1968, 8, 377-383.
16
JOSEQE
G.UZMAN
•
EDWARDS, D. J. Returning a dropped object: effect
of
response cause. and number
of
potential
.helpers,
Joumal
of
Social Psychology, 1975, 97,
95-101.
GAERTNER, . S. 1.. The role
of
,racial attitudes on
helping behavior.
Journal
of
Social Psychology.
1975,97, 167-171.
GUIDER, c L and COOK, T. D. Sex, dependency
and helping.
Journal
of
Personality and Social
Psychology,
1971, 19, 290-294.
HARRIS;,
V.'
A. and ROBINSON, C. E. Bystander
intervention: group size and
victim,
status.
Psychology Abstracts, 1974,51,
N~.3,
392.
KORTE, C.,
UPMA,
L and TOPPEN, A. Helpfulness
in Dutch society
as a function
of
urbanization
and environmental input level
Journal
of
Person-
ality and Social Psychology,
1975, 32, 996-1103.
LATANE,
~.
and
RODIN,L
A lady in distress:
inhibiting effects of
friends'
and strangers on
bystander intervention.
Journal
of
Experimental
Social Psychology,
1969,5,
189-'2.Q2.
LEVY. P.. LUNDGREEN, D., ANSEL,
Mo,
FELL, D.
FINK, B. and McGRATH, J.
E. Bystander effect
in a demand-without-threat
situation.. Journal
of
Personality and Social Psychology, 1972, 24,
166·171.
MATHEWS,
K. E. and CANON, 1.. R.Environmental
noise level as determinants of helping behavior.
Journal
of
Personality and Social Psychology,
1975,32,571'577. " .
. .
'.
....
MILGRAM, S. The experience
of
living in cities: a
psychology
analysis., Science, 1970, 167,
,
146
1-1468..
POMAZAI:,' I. A. 'and CLORE; G. L Helping on the
highway: the effects of dependency and sex.
Psychology Abstracts, 1974,51,
No.6,
1411.
SAMEROTTE, C. C. and HARRIS, M. B. Some
factors influencing helping:
the
effects of a handi-
cap, responsibility and requesting help.
Psycho-
logy Abstracts,
1975, 56, 2884.:
SCHAPS,
E~
Dependency, costs, and helping. Journal
of
Personality and Social-Psychology,
1972,2{,
No. I, 74-78. '
SCHNEIDER, F. N. When will a stranger lend a
helping hand? Journal
of
Social Psychology,
1973,90, 335-336.
SCHWARTZ, S. H. and CLAUSEN, G. T; Responsi-
bility, norms and helping
in.
an emergency.
Journal
of
Personality and Social Psychology,
,1970, 16, 299-310.
SHENOD, D. R. and DOWNS, R. Environmental
determinants of altruism: the effects
of
stimulus
overload and perceived control
of
helping.
Journal
of
Experimental Social Psychology. 1974,
10, 468-479. .
-:,'
"
•